From a Buddhist perspective, there is something called "dependent arising".

This basically means that something else has to exist in order for something to exist.

What both of the phrases mean in terms of time is that in every moment, existence is just beginning to exist through the lack of isn't, and dependent arising.

That's why the present is so important in Buddhism.

The present moment is all of creation.

Yes there is 'dependent origination' [inter-beingness] is Buddhism, but there is also the concept of 'Sunyata' aka 'emptiness' and that is ultimately extended to 'nothingness' [it is contentious]. But I do not agree with the opposing view taking into the account the principle of the Buddhist Tetralemma.

The way I've had emptiness taught to me is that dreams are just as real as waking life, and thus, they are both not real, you must wake from the dream of the dreams and the dream of the waking life.

Since dreams are empty, and waking life is also empty, this is called "everything is emptiness". Unless you wake up from both dreams, then you are called an "awakened one", enlightened.

Agree to an extent, but the point is 'awakened_ness' is also empty as with emptiness is also empty. Where one do not adopt this principle, there is a good chance the ego [self] will creep in to grab/cling [Upādāna] at whatever.

There are many [monks, gurus, mystics] who claimed to be awakened and had/have many followers but they turned out be involved in many evil scandals.

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

iambiguous wrote:If the only accumulated knowledge in the entire universe is here on Earth and tomorrow the Really ReallyReally Big One [ asteroid / comet ] strikes it and obliterates all life forms what of knowledge then ?

It will cease to exist because knowledge requires minds so without them it is no moreInformation however does not require minds so it will carry on existing just as before

Although i find this funny, it is actually a bad idea to go around thinking people are crazy bastards.It's a trick where you compare yourself to the worst people therefor you are great because you aren't as bad as they are.

In an ideal world, every extraordinary philosophical question would come with an extraordinary story telling the tale of how someone first thought of it. Unfortunately, we can only guess at what led a German philosopher, perhaps today best known for the Choco Leibniz biscuits later named after him, to come up with what is often described as the greatest philosophical question of all, namely: why is there something rather than nothing?

At least we can all surely agree here about that. What could possibly be more important to grasp than why there is something and not nothing at all?

Only after this either can or cannot be established does it make sense to move on to why this something and not another something instead.

Only how on earth is it possible to answer a question involving something that you are yourself inherently a part of? Here the objective truth is being pursued subjectively by a mind that is unable even to explain how and why it is embedded in something at all.

So: Is there any realistic way at all to explore this "reasonably"?

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

iambiguous wrote:If the only accumulated knowledge in the entire universe is here on Earth and tomorrow the Really ReallyReally Big One [ asteroid / comet ] strikes it and obliterates all life forms what of knowledge then ?

It will cease to exist because knowledge requires minds so without them it is no moreInformation however does not require minds so it will carry on existing just as before

So, if human intelligence actually is the only source of knowledge in the universe, then all that existed going back to whatever actually explains somethingness itself, was still around.

Whatever that means?

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

iambiguous wrote:So if human intelligence actually is the only source of knowledge in the universe

Humans are recipients of knowledge not its source as that is the external physical worldFor we acquire scientific facts through observation rather than through simple deduction

Okay, but however we attain our knowledge, how exactly do we wrap our heads [here and now] around a universe in which there are no conscious minds around [determined or otherwise] to acknowledge its very existence?

That's one of the reasons mere mortals invent the Gods. To provide themselves with a frame of mind that is always around. A mind not only able to acknowledge the existence of the universe but to actually create it. That way we can always sweep the stuff we don't know about it under the rug we call "God's will". His "mysterious ways".

Then we are particularly in over our heads when we attempt to grapple with the origin of God's knowledge.

It's all this gigantic mystery. Not only do we seem unable to explain something rather than nothing at all, we don't seem able to comprehend how on earth we would even go about explaining it.

Unless of course someone actually has and I am simply unable to grasp it.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

I and you are the something to come of nothing through nature (objectivity) and the nothing has determined my consciousness a possibility, of which has granted me nature’s power of being something and bringing something from nothing or I may revert back to nothing from something through the remaining of staying in traps and the unknowing promotion of ignorance.

If nothing is better than something to an individual , then what value does their life have? One may return to nothing from something instead of building something from nothing, this is called suicide.

Welcome to the reality ladies and gents, fear and pain. Accept it and make it worth it through an everlasting manifestable plate of possibilities. (Evolution).

Creating something from nothing from individual consciousness is where subjectivity is born and manifestable.

Even nothing, is something.If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Many earlier thinkers had asked why our universe is the way it is, but Leibniz went a step further, wondering why there is a universe at all. The question is a challenging one because it seems perfectly possible that there might have been nothing whatsoever – no Earth, no stars, no galaxies, no universe. Leibniz even thought that nothing would have been “simpler and easier”. If nothing whatsoever had existed then no explanation would have been needed – not that there would have been anyone around to ask for an explanation, of course, but that’s a different matter.

And immediately we come to the, uh, heart of the matter? In contemplating the existence of something rather than nothing, what on earth does it mean to think of something as being "perfectly possible"? In fact the only way we can encompass this fully is in already having an explanation for why there is something instead of nothing.

We have no capacity to yank ourselves up out of this particular something and examine it going all the way back to what may or may not have been the actual beginning of space and time.

We don't even know for certain if in coming up with words like "simpler and easier" we are able to do that as anything other than just another necessary component of space-time itself.

Leibniz thought that the fact that there is something and not nothing requires an explanation. The explanation he gave was that God wanted to create a universe – the best one possible – which makes God the simple reason that there is something rather than nothing.

In the years since Leibniz’s death, his great question has continued to exercise philosophers and scientists, though in an increasingly secular age it is not surprising that many have been wary of invoking God as the answer to it.

Of course an explanation is not required at all. We come into existence, we live out our life and then we die. Billions and billions of us so far. Some having invented God as the explanation, others refusing to.

Only in jettisoning God as the explanation, the answer becomes all that more mindboggling. God basically is the simple solution. No God though and somehow existence itself was either always around or had "burst" into existence out of nothing at all.

And how miserably unsatisfying are "explanations" like that?

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

iambiguous wrote:however we attain our knowledge how exactly do we wrap our heads [ here and now ] around a universe in which there are no conscious minds around [ determined or otherwise ] to acknowledge its very existence

Thats one of the reasons mere mortals invent the Gods . To provide themselves with a frame of mind that is always around . A mind not only able to acknowledge the existence of the universe but to actually create it . That way we can always sweep the stuff we dont know about it under the rug we call Gods will

Then we are particularly in over our heads when we attempt to grapple with the origin of Gods knowledge

We cannot possibly understand the Universe in all its entirety - and there is no reason as to why we should - but we can acknowledge its existenceThis can be done without the need to invent God which only brings with it more unanswerable questions - albeit ones that are actually superfluous

surreptitious75 wrote:We cannot possibly understand the Universe in all its entirety - and there is no reason as to why we should - but we can acknowledge its existence

But: How can you possibly know this? It is certainly not likely that either you or I will understand it in its entirety before we die. But neither of us can know for certain if those who come after us will come to grasp it.

And we have no way of knowing for certain that a God, the God does not exist who is privy to this knowledge.

Imagine folks thousands of years ago imagining the things that they were all but certain that we would never know --- things that many of us now just take for granted.

You speak of "superfluous" things as though you can in fact actually list them.

It seems that our brains are hard wired to resist the thought that things of this sort are beyond explanation.

But a few of us come to that conclusion anyway.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

surreptitious75 wrote:Scientific knowledge is acquired through evidence that is always incompleteSo omniscience is impossible as it comes up against the problem of induction

In my view you are making a prediction about a future that you will not be around to actually confirm.

You can't possibly know how close the human race [or an intelligent species on another planet] might come to an extant God or an extant explanation for existence.

Again, what I construe from your argument here is, above all else, a need on your part to believe that what you think you know about all of this "in your head" here and now is grounded in the certainty to which you believe it.

Human psychology in a nut shell.

But we don't even know if, beyond all doubt, this feeling of certainty is not in turn just hard-wired into our brains by nature in a wholly determined universe.

The bottom line [mine] is that beyond the argument/assessment/analysis itself, you have no capacity to actually demonstrate that what you believe is true here is in fact true. Such that others are [through experiments, predictions, replication etc.] able to either confirm or falsify this belief.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

surreptitious75 wrote:Scientific knowledge is acquired through evidence that is always incompleteSo omniscience is impossible as it comes up against the problem of induction

Understanding knowledge, pursuit of wisdom, which is the process of becoming omniscient in a sense, understanding is a staircase and there is a top of the staircase, we have already experienced the top and the bottom, the point is to climb it and understand each step and not merely experience or know the step is there. To refresh our memory and understand.

How can I not understand the universe in its entirety when I am the entire universe confined to a single present moment of continuity? a collection of integrated experiences and knowledge as the very foundation of what I am existing as and conscious of.

Even nothing, is something.If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Artimas wrote: How can I not understand the universe in its entirety when I am the entire universe confined to a single present moment of continuity

I am part of the Universe - albeit an infinitesimal and temporary part - but it does not mean I understand what I am part of - at least not totallyBut it matters not because in the grand scheme of things I am no more significant than a grain of sand in a desert or a drop of water in an ocean

Artimas wrote: How can I not understand the universe in its entirety when I am the entire universe confined to a single present moment of continuity

I am part of the Universe - albeit an infinitesimal and temporary part - but it does not mean I understand what I am part of - at least not totallyBut it matters not because in the grand scheme of things I am no more significant than a grain of sand in a desert or a drop of water in an ocean

Understanding yourself is understanding what you’re apart of. The path of wisdom.

The string of change goes back a long time leading up to now, we are embedded with this like dna, as well as the future. Understanding yourself is like understanding past, present and future.

Even nothing, is something.If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

In the years since Leibniz’s death, his great question has continued to exercise philosophers and scientists, though in an increasingly secular age it is not surprising that many have been wary of invoking God as the answer to it.

Complicating things considerably. Unless you insist that an explanation for God's existence is included here, God explains everything else.

If not necessarily your own God.

One kind of answer is to say that there had to be something; that it would have been impossible for there to have been nothing. This was the view of the 17th century philosopher Spinoza, who claimed that the entire universe, along with all of its contents, laws and events, had to exist, and exist in the way it does. Einstein, who counted himself a follower of Spinoza’s philosophy, appears to have held a similar view.

Or one might argue that by definition existence must exist. But how specious is that with respect to existence itself? It's really just a way of saying that we have no capacity to definitively explain existence so we'll agree to say that it's always been there. Which is basically the same boat that the "before the Big Bang there was nothing at all" folks are in.

In other words, you reach the end of road in regards to what your own brain can fathom and just stop there. Yes, something. Yes, nothing at all.

Or maybe not either one. Then you are falling over the edge into the sort of "metaphysical" speculation that all but makes your head explode.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Other scientists, such as theoretical physicist Laurence Krauss in his populist book A Universe from Nothing (2012), offer a more nuanced version of this answer to Leibniz’s great question. Krauss claims that our universe arose naturally and inevitably from the operation of gravity on the quantum vacuum, empty space teeming with virtual particles that spontaneously pop into existence before disappearing again. Krauss’s theory implies that there could not have been nothing because there has always been something: first there was gravity and the quantum vacuum, and out of that was born the universe as we know it.

Arguments like this are often the most exasperating for most of us. Why? Because we do not possess either the background, the experience or the education necessary to fully understand it. Let alone the sophistication needed to even make the attempt to either verify or falsify it.

On the other hand, given all that is yet to be known about the 95% of the universe containing dark matter and dark energy -- cosmogonic "things" we have barely just begun to understand -- what does it mean even for the "experts" to speak of somethingness arising "naturally and inevitably from the operation of gravity on the quantum vacuum, empty space teeming with virtual particles that spontaneously pop into existence before disappearing again."

That's the part that gets some of us to grinning smirking. Sure, employ your background and intelligence to take a truly educated guess at it. But to actually imagine that you have pinned it down with your every own TOE?

Call this [here] the James S. Saint syndrome.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

On this level, something and/or nothing reduces to a level that is eithwr cosmic , e.i above that which can be understood, or the invisible, that which Leibnitz indicated of the continuum of relationships as not approximate at the level of the absolute. This point defeats the theme ofnthe forum, (something or nothing), because at this level they are not differentiable not integrable.Consciousness , thought, ideas, etc. reduce to mere words, beneath which lays the great chasm, consisting of neither, or both, unless one is bold enough to declare a separate differentiable being from mere existence.

The thema defeats it's own conclusion, converting to it's antithesis and becoming an eternal circularity.

Meno_ wrote:On this level, something and/or nothing reduces to a level that is either cosmic , e.i above that which can be understood, or the invisible, that which Leibnitz indicated of the continuum of relationships as not approximate at the level of the absolute. This point defeats the theme of the forum, (something or nothing), because at this level they are not differentiable nor integrable.Consciousness , thought, ideas, etc. reduce to mere words, beneath which lays the great chasm, consisting of neither, or both, unless one is bold enough to declare a separate differentiable being from mere existence.

The thema defeats it's own conclusion, converting to it's antithesis and becoming an eternal circularity.